Method and system for providing improved answers

ABSTRACT

Disclosed is a method and system for ranking answers supplied by user authors in an online database. A first author enters a first answer under a question. The answer is ranked #1 for output under that question. Then a second author enters a second answer under the same question. The second author also enters a bet claiming that her answer is better than the first answer. If the first author declines the bet, the second answer becomes ranked #1 for output under the question. If the first author accepts the bet, the bet is decided by a judge. The judge enters her decision into the answer database system. 
     If the judge finds that the first author&#39;s answer is better than the second author&#39;s, then the first author&#39;s answer remains ranked first under the question; if the judge finds that the second author&#39;s answer is better, then the second author&#39;s answer replaces the first author&#39;s answer as the #1 ranked answer under the question.

CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 11/903,230,filed on Sep. 20, 2007.

This application was preceded by, and claims benefit of, disclosuredocument 524359, filed on Jan. 13, 2003, entitled Method for ImprovingAnswers in a Pay-for-Answers Database System.

This application was also preceded by, and claims benefit of,provisional application 60/542,392, filed on Feb. 6, 2004, entitledMethod for Improving Answers in a Pay-for-Answers Database System.

This application makes reference to U.S. Pat. No. 6,131,085, entitledAnswer Collection and Retrieval System Governed by a Pay-off Meter.

STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH

Not applicable.

REFERENCE TO SEQUENCE LISTING

Not applicable.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The invention relates to online database methods and systems forproviding, evaluating and retrieving answers.

Online answer databases have arisen in which ordinary users contributeanswers for free. Wikipedia is an example. Online answer databases havealso arisen in which ordinary users contribute answers for pay. GoogleAnswers (now defunct) is an example. U.S. Pat. No. 6,131,085 describes apay-for-answers database method and system. In both types of systems,various problems impede users from improving answers. One basic problemis the labor cost of judging the quality of answers. A second basicproblem is that there is no good method for measuring the quality of ananswer; so therefore, disputes arise as to whether and how much oneanswer improves on another.

Current methods for improving answers in databases include:

-   -   Having a special class of users who have special rights to        improve answers    -   Having a special class of users who judge the quality of answers    -   Incorporating user feedback regarding answers    -   Using mechanistic rules for evaluating and ranking answers.

This application discloses a novel method that reduces the costs ofdisputes about whether one answer is an improvement over another. Inthis method, an author of an answer bets that her answer is better thana higher ranked answer by another author. The potential financialpenalty of the bet encourages honesty by both authors as to who hassupplied the better answer. The challenger author's answer replaces thehigher ranked answer if the author of the higher ranked answer declinesto bet. This method can be adapted to allow consumers of answers to alsobet and thereby affect the ranking of answers.

The inventor does not know of this method being proposed for any answersystem. U.S. Pat. No. 6,131,085 stated that betting methods could beused for quality control of answers, but the patent did not supplydetails.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Disclosed is a method and system for ranking answers in an onlinedatabase, and for facilitating the improvement of those answers byauthors.

A first author enters a first answer under a question. The answer isranked #1 for output under that question. Then a second author enters asecond answer under the same question. The second author also enters abet offer claiming that her answer is better than the first answer. Ifthe first author declines the bet offer, the second answer becomesranked #1 for output under the question. If the first author insteadaccepts the bet offer, a bet is struck and, the bet is then decided by ajudge.

The judge enters her decision into the answer database system.

If the judge finds that the first author's answer is better than thesecond author's, then the first author's answer remains ranked #1 underthe question; if the judge finds that the second author's answer isbetter, then the second author's answer replaces the first author'sanswer as the #1 ranked answer under the question.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Drawing 1 shows a flowchart of the sequence of the invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION Contents

Preface: Problems that the Invention Addresses

Definitions

I. Core Invention

II. Invention Including Method for Comparing More than Two Answers at aTime

III. Invention Including Method for Enabling Consumers Users to Bet

IV. Invention Including Method for Dividing Royalties

Preface: Problems that the Inventive Method Addresses

In an online database system (DBS) in which users supply answers toquestions, more than one answer can be supplied to a question. So, it isnecessary to determine whether one answer improves on another, in orderto rank those answers for output in response to the question.

For example, an answer DBS may contain answers by different authors tothe question: How do clocks work? If so, the DBS requires a procedurefor determining whose answer is better for output in response to thequestion. The answers can be considered competing answers.

Now, if the authors of the competing answers are allowed to judge whichanswer is better, disputes will often arise.

In a pay answer DBS, the potential for disputes may be greater than in afree answer DBS because an author who receives royalties has a financialincentive to claim that his answer is better than a competing answer.

Therefore, in both a free answer and a pay answer DBS, it can bedesirable to employ a neutral judge to evaluate competing answers.

Yet, hiring a neutral a judge is costly.

This cost problem can be thought of as two problems. One problem is howto reduce the cost of judging. The second problem is how to encourageauthors to be honest about whether their answers are better thancompeting answers, thereby reducing disputes and the need for judging.

The invention provides a solution to these two problems, and in sodoing, provides a solution to two other important problems:

-   -   1. which competing answer to output in response to a question    -   2. how to enable improvements to be made to the answers in an        answer DBS.

DEFINITIONS

The definitions below are not exhaustive. They are supplementedthroughout this Description.

User Supplied Answers Database System (Answer DBS)

An online database system in which users supply answers to correspond toquestions entered by other users. The answers are stored to correspondto the questions, and are outputted in response to the questions beingentered. Users may also supply the questions to the answer DBS.

User Supplied Free Answers Database System (Free Answer DBS)

An answer DBS in which users supply and retrieve answers for free.

Author

A user who supplies an answer to an answer DBS.

Consumer

A user who enters a question seeking an answer, a consumer of answers.

User Supplied Pay-for-Answers Database System (Pay Answer DBS)

An answer DBS in which users buy answers supplied by authors who arepaid royalties.

Judge

A user who decides whether one answer is better than another. A judgemay also decide how much better one answer is than another. “A judge”can mean a single judge or a panel of judges or a panel of consumerusers who act in the role of a judge.

Current Answer

The answer that is output first by the answer DBS in response to aconsumer entering a question seeking an answer. The current answer maybe the only answer that is output in response to a question. The currentanswer is ranked #1 under a question in the sense that it is output atthe top of a list of answers in response to a question. If a list is notused, then the current answer is the answer that the DBS outputspreferentially in response to a question.

Current Author

The author of the current answer.

Higher Ranked Answer and Lower Ranked Answer

A first answer that is outputted ahead of a second answer in response toa question is called higher ranked, relative to the second answer, whichis lower ranked relative to the first answer.

Challenger Answer

An answer that an author supplies to correspond to a question, and whichthe author claims is better than the current answer, or than a higherranked answer, or than an equally ranked answer.

Challenger Author

The author of the challenger answer.

A Bet

An agreement between or among people who take opposite sides of acontroversy and risk money such that each will pay the other an amountof money, the amounts depending on: (a) which side each has taken in thecontroversy, (b) the outcome of the controversy and (c) themoney-at-stake and division-of-money rules that apply to the bet (anexample is an even-odds bet, but bets employed in the invention are notlimited to even-odds bets or odds type bets).

A Bet Offer

An offer by a user to engage in a bet with another user or users.

Betting Line

A number that reflects the current market sentiment about a betcontroversy. The number is generated from bets about the controversy.The concept of a betting line applies a wide variety of types of bets.Betting lines can be expressed as the odds offered, as a point spread,as the price of a bet security or, as the amount of money wagered oneach outcome of a bet. A betting line that can be employed in theinvention is not limited to these types of lines. For purposes of theinvention, the key aspect of a betting line is that it is generated fromthe betting actions of a group of people and, further, enables theranking of the answers that are the subjects of the bets, just as horsescan be ranked in a race according to the betting line.

Improvement to an Answer (Also Called an Improvement or ImprovementAnswer)

Anything that improves an answer, from a typo correction to a completelynew alternative.

I. Core Invention

Specialized terms, such as current answer, are used below. Fordefinitions, see above.

Some of the steps given below are stated for clarity's sake and are notstrictly necessary. Those skilled in the art will see better ways toarrange the steps, excise unnecessary steps, and substitute equivalentsteps and operations to arrive at the same basic method disclosed below.The sequence laid out below is not meant to limit the scope orequivalent variations on the basic method or arrangement of theinvention.

The core invention is comprised of the following elements: an onlinecomputer database system for supplying and retrieving answers (answerDBS). This answer DBS includes processors, memory, online input/output,software, and a user interface for:

-   -   Creating user accounts, including accounts for funds    -   Entering a question and supplying a corresponding answer    -   Entering a question and retrieving a corresponding answer    -   Entering a bet offer, which can be directed at a specified user        or audience    -   Accepting a bet offer    -   Providing money to fund a bet offer and agreement    -   Entering a bet decision.

The inventive method is comprised of the following steps that the answerDBS executes. Drawing 1 is a flowchart that shows the sequence of thesesteps.

The method begins with the answer DBS presenting its interface to users.

When a first author, Frank, enters a question and supplies 1 the firstanswer to that question, the answer DBS:

-   -   stores the answer to correspond to the question    -   designates 2 the answer as the current answer    -   designates 3 the author as the current author. (This step is not        necessary, for it adds no new information. It is included for        clarity's sake in describing the inventive method.)

Then, when another author, Sue, enters the same question and supplies 4a different answer, the answer DBS:

-   -   stores the answer to correspond to the question    -   designates Sue's answer as a challenger answer in relation to        the current answer    -   designates 5 Sue as the challenger author in relation to Frank        and Frank's answer    -   requires Sue to enter a bet offer, directed at Frank, claiming        that her answer to the question is better than his.

Sue enters 6 the bet offer, directed at Frank, claiming that her answeris better than Frank's. As part of her bet offer, Sue provides an amountof money to fund the bet offer, as required by the meta-rules of theanswer DBS.

The answer DBS:

-   -   stores the bet offer, associating it with a bet controversy        regarding which answer is better, the current answer (Frank's)        or the challenger answer (Sue's)    -   registers the amount of money Sue has put at stake.

The answer DBS alerts Frank about Sue's bet offer and starts anacceptance deadline clock.

If Frank does not accept the bet offer within the period of theacceptance clock, the answer DBS:

-   -   declares that Frank has declined the bet offer    -   associates the declaration with the controversy between Frank's        and Sue's answer    -   takes away 7 the current answer designation from Frank's answer    -   designates 7 Sue's answer as the current answer    -   designates 8 Sue as the current author.

If Frank accepts the bet within the period of the acceptance clock, andprovides money to fund his acceptance, the answer DBS:

-   -   stores the acceptance    -   associates the acceptance with the controversy concerning        Frank's and Sue's answers    -   registers the amount of money Frank has put at stake    -   alerts 9 a judge to decide the bet (the answer DBS includes a        process for alerting a judge or a panel of judges).

The bet is decided by the judge who enters 10 a bet decision into theanswer DBS.

The answer DBS stores the decision, associating it with the controversyand with Frank's and Sue's answer.

If the judge finds that Frank's answer is better, the answer DBSmaintains 11 Frank's answer as the current answer; if the judge findsthat Sue's answer is better, then the answer DBS takes away 7 thecurrent answer designation from Frank's answer, and designates 7 Sue'sanswer as the current answer (replacing Frank's answer in this respect),and designates 8 Sue as the current author.

The winner of the bet owes the loser the amount of money specified bythe bet terms. The answer DBS transfers money from the loser's accountto the winner's account, as specified by the bet terms.

Competing authors involved in a bet may share the cost of judging or theloser may pay the judge's costs. Accordingly, the answer DBS cantransfer a portion of the money at stake to the judge. Alternatively, afee outside the bet may be paid to the judge by one or both authors. Inany case, the answer DBS includes elements and steps for receivingjudging fees from either or both authors and transferring the money tothe judge. Alternatively, the judges may be volunteers, especially in afree answer DBS.

When another author, the “next” author, enters the same question andsupplies 12 a different answer than the current answer, the processabove repeats:

The DBS:

-   -   designates this next author's answer as the challenger answer in        relation to the current answer    -   designates 13 this next author as the challenger author in        relation to the current author    -   requires this next author to enter a bet offer, directed at the        current author, claiming that the challenger answer to the        question is better than the current answer.    -   The challenger author enters 14 the bet offer, and process        continues as stated.

The steps above comprise the core inventive method.

Note that if a current answer is displaced by a challenger answer, thedisplaced answer does not have to disappear. The answer DBS can keep theanswer and can enable the author to challenge the new current answer,somewhat like appealing a judge's decision to another court.

Benefits of the Invention

The method employs a betting process that creates a potential or actualbet between competing authors regarding the relative merits of theiranswers to a question. If the money at risk in the bet is substantial,the penalty of losing can encourage the authors to be honest about thosemerits. In other words, the method can discourage exaggerated claims ofimprovement by challenger authors, while encouraging current authors toacknowledge the improvements of challenger authors. Judging costs arereduced because a judge becomes involved only when competing authors arewilling to engage in a bet. In these ways, the method can facilitate theevolution of answers in an answer DBS.

Invention as Part of a Free Answer DBS

The core method can be incorporated into a free answers DBS.

Invention as Part of a Pay Answer DBS Including Steps for AssigningRoyalties

The core method disclosed above can be incorporated into a pay answerDBS, like the system described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,131,085.

When implemented within a pay answer DBS, the royalty stream for ananswer is influenced or changed entirely when the current answer isreplaced by the challenger answer. So, where the invention isincorporated into a pay answer DBS, the DBS will include elements andsteps for:

-   -   assigning some or all of the royalties for the new current        answer to the new current author, according to the royalty rules        formula implemented within the answer DBS.

The royalty rules in a pay answer DBS can, of course, vary widely.Specific royalty rules are not the subject of this Description. However,Part IV below discloses how an embodiment of the invention can addressthe problem of how to divide royalties between two authors who havecontributed to the evolution of an answer.

How a Judge is Alerted and Asked to Decide the Bet

This Description does not add to the art of calling a judge to decide acase. The system can incorporate various methods for calling a judge todecide an answer controversy.

In the embodiment above, the answer DBS alerts a judge after a bet isaccepted. The time period that passes between the acceptance and thealerting can be set by a default. Alternatively, the system can enableone of the parties in the bet to ask for a judge to decide the bet.

The meta-rules of the system can require that one or both parties pay ajudging fee in order to alert a judge to decide the bet.

Steps for Adding Reasons to a Bet

The invention can also include steps for enabling an author (or anyuser) who bets on the merit of one answer over a competing answer toenter, for display, reasons why she thinks the answer she is betting onis better than the competing answer. Accordingly, the answer DBS caninclude steps for storing reasons associated with a bet and displayingthose reasons with an author's answer and with the bet terms.

Steps for Gathering User Feedback Before the Bet is Accepted

In many answer DBS's, users who consume the answers may be the ones todetermine whether one answer is better than another—a panel of theseusers may judge competing answers. Therefore, before an author has torisk money that his answer is better than a competing answer, it can beuseful to enable the author to gather the opinion of a sample ofconsumer users.

Hence, the answer DBS can include steps for enabling an author to askthe opinion of certain consumers about the merits of his answer comparedto the competing answer. Accordingly, an answer DBS incorporating theinvention can also include process steps for enabling the current andchallenger authors to solicit the opinions of consumer users before abet agreement has been made regarding which answer is better.

Steps for Using Feedback after the Bet is Accepted

It can also be convenient to enable either author in a bet agreement toretract their bets based upon information received from consumers (orother information gleaned before the judge's decision). Accordingly, asan enhancement to the invention, the answer DBS can include steps forenabling either author in a bet agreement to retract a bet offer (in thecase of the challenger author) or bet acceptance (in the case of thecurrent author). The answer DBS can also include steps for assessing apenalty for the retraction.

II. Invention Including Method for Comparing More than Two Answers at aTime

The method above can be enhanced by adding steps for enabling more thanone author to challenge a current answer. In cases where more than oneauthor wants to challenge the current answer, it can be more efficientto have all the authors make a bet as to whose answer is the best.

Accordingly, the answer DBS can include steps for comparing more thantwo competing answers and subjecting their authors to the honesty testof a bet. In such a bet, the controversy is about which answer will bejudged best of all the answers, as in a horse race.

The answer DBS can include the following steps, executed when an authorsupplies a challenger answer to a current answer:

-   -   store the answer to correspond to the question that the current        answer corresponds to    -   designate the answer as a challenger answer in relation to the        current answer, and the author as a challenger author, in        relation to the current author    -   start a submission deadline clock setting a time limit for        additional answers by other authors to the same question    -   if any other authors submit answers to the same question,        designate each of those answers as a challenger answer, and each        of their authors as a challenger author    -   alert each challenger author and the current author about all        the answers supplied for the same question    -   require every challenger author to enter a bet offer claiming        that his answer is better than the current answer and better        than the other challenger answers    -   register funds entered by the challenger author(s) to cover        their bet offer(s),    -   when the submission deadline clock runs out, start a bet        acceptance deadline clock (these deadlines can run        concurrently—the bet acceptance clock does not have to run        directly after the submission clock)    -   if the current author does not accept the bet offer(s) then the        answer DBS alerts a judge and tells the judge that the current        answer is not a subject of the bet and will be replaced by the        winning challenger answer    -   if the current author accepts the bet offer(s) then the answer        DBS alerts a judge and tells the judge that the current author        has accepted the bet    -   the answer DBS presents the judge with the competing answers

The judge enters a decision as to which answer is best. Then, the answerDBS:

-   -   stores the decision and designates the winning answer as the        current answer, and the author of that answer as the current        author    -   transfers money at stake in the bets from the losing authors to        the winning author in accordance with the terms of the bets.

III. Invention Including Method for Enabling Consumer Users to Bet

The inventive method may be enhanced to include interface elements andsteps so that any user of the answer DBS can supply an answer to be thecurrent answer, even if the supplier is not the actual author of theanswer.

The answer DBS can accordingly include steps to enable a user to find anexisting answer in the answer DBS and submit it as the challenger answerto a current answer. In this situation, the user would be in theposition of the challenger author, except that the user might not be dueroyalties and would not be cited or credited as the author. In otheressential respects, the inventive method remains.

The answer DBS can incorporate incentive rules for rewarding users whoare not actual authors but who put up challenger answers that replacecurrent answers.

Just as the inventive method can include steps for enabling any user totake the betting place of challenger authors, the method can includesteps for enabling any user to defend a current answer via a bet, evenif the author of the answer is unwilling to defend it.

Enabling any User to Bet about the Relative Merits of Answers

The inventive method and system can include elements and steps forenabling any user of the answer DBS to bet on which competing answerwill win in a bet controversy.

Variation in which a Betting Line Provisionally Determines the CurrentAnswer

In the inventive method, a challenger answer replaces a current answerwhen a current author declines to bet against the challenger author, orwhen a bet is struck and a judge determines that the challenger answeris better.

A potentially advantageous variation is to modify the method such that achallenger author can supply an answer to challenge the current answer,and then the answer DBS can enable any user, including the two authors,to bet on which answer a judge will choose as the better answer.

When more than two users make bet offers and/or bet agreements then theanswer DBS can create a betting line regarding which answer will bejudged best, the line being generated from the bet offers and betagreements made regarding which competing answer is best.

The answer DBS can designate the answer that is favored according to thebetting line as the current answer.

In this modification of the inventive method, the current answer changesdynamically according to which answer is favored in the betting line.

If more than two answers are the subject of a bet controversy, themethod still applies—the answer DBS designates the answer favored by theline as the current answer.

Then, if and when the bet is settled by a judge's decision, the answerthat the judge deems best is designated the current answer. It may bethe answer most recently favored in the betting line, or it may beanother answer.

IV. Method for Dividing Royalties

In a pay answer DBS, authors are paid royalties when their answers arepurchased.

If more than one author can contribute to the evolution of a currentanswer, the pay answer DBS should have royalty division rules thatdefine how royalties are to be divided between or among authors who haveplayed a part in the current answer by supplying improvements toprevious answers or improvements to the current answer.

Dividing royalties will usually involve subjective judgments that cancreate disputes.

For example, assume hypothetical royalty division rules that state:

-   -   If a challenger improves on a current answer, then it becomes        the new current answer and royalties are divided as follows:        -   If a challenger answer improves on the old current answer by            50% or more, then the challenger author will be paid all the            royalties from the sales of the new current answer.        -   If the challenger answer improves on the current answer by            10%-50%, the challenger author will be paid 10% of the            royalties from the sales of the new current answer.        -   And if the challenger answer improves on the current answer            by 10% or less, the challenger author will receive no            royalties from the sales of the new current answer;            royalties will continue to go to the previous current            author.

This hypothetical example posits a scoring system that determines thedivision of royalties. Scoring answers is a subjective task that in mostcases invites disputes.

So, as described above, a neutral judge may need to be invoked, in thiscase to decide how much a challenger answer improves on a currentanswer.

The inventive method described above can be enhanced to encourageauthors to arrive at their own honest judgments of improvements and toreduce the need for neutral judging.

We assume a pay answer DBS including the following elements:

-   -   (1) An interface for entering an answer and an appraisal claim        about how that answer improves on another specified answer    -   (2) A current answer    -   (3) An interface for entering challenger answers that may        improve on the current answer    -   (4) Royalty rules for scoring improvements to an answer and for        determining the amount or percentage of royalties that an author        gets paid for an improvement to a current answer    -   (5) A judging procedure in which a judge determines how much a        current answer has been improved by a challenger answer (an        improvement), as defined by the royalty rules    -   (6) A penalty for an exaggerated assertion of an improvement to        an answer by the author (supplier) of the improvement.

Embodiment for Dividing Royalties in a Pay Answer System

In this embodiment, when a challenger author supplies a challengeranswer, she also supplies her opinion, her appraisal claim of how muchof an improvement she has made according to the royalty rules in effect.

Accordingly, the answer DBS:

-   -   stores the appraisal claim along with the challenger answer    -   notifies the current author of the challenger answer and of the        challenger author's claim of improvement    -   lets the current author contest the improvement by entering his        appraisal of the challenger answer, such that the current author        claims that the challenger answer is:        -   a. not an improvement or        -   b. not as much of an improvement as the challenger author            claims.

If the current author does not contest the challenger answer, then theanswer DBS:

-   -   designates the challenger answer as the current answer    -   assigns the challenger author the royalties she has claimed.

If the current author does contest the improvement, then the answer DBSlets the challenger author agree or disagree with the current author'sappraisal of the improvement.

If the challenger author agrees with the current author's appraisal, theanswer DBS:

-   -   sets the challenger author's royalty rate at what the current        author has claimed, according to the royalty rules.

If the challenger author disagrees with the current author's appraisal,the answer DBS:

-   -   designates that a bet controversy is created:    -   At this point, the answer DBS alerts both authors to put up a        sum of money to:    -   (a) pay to the author that wins the controversy    -   (b) pay for the judging costs and    -   If one of the authors fails to put up the money, the answer DBS:        -   designates the other author's claim as accepted        -   assigns and him/her the royalties he/she has claimed, as            defined by the royalty rules.    -   If both authors put up the money then the answer DBS alerts a        judge to decide the controversy by deciding the amount of the        improvement, if any.    -   The judge enters his decision regarding the controversy.    -   The DBS stores the decision and replaces the current answer or        not, in accordance with the decision, and assigns royalties to        the “winning author,” in accordance with the royalty rules.    -   If the challenger answer is judged an improvement, then the        answer DBS replaces the current answer (even if it is not as        great an improvement as claimed by the challenger author) and        assigns royalties to the author in accordance with the royalty        rules.

Court costs may be paid out of the combined pot of money, and theremainder of the money in the pot may be paid to the “winning” author.As noted, methods for paying judges can vary.

Creation of a Line of Authors and the Protection of Each Author's Rights

In the method above, royalties can depend on the contributions ofprevious answers, so the method inherently creates a line of authors fora given current answer.

If a challenger author receives a share of the royalties for an answer,he not only gets a share of the current author's royalties, but may alsoa share of the other authors in the line who also have royalty rights.For example, let us assume there is one other author in the author line,who has the right to receive 50% of the current answer's royalties. Andlet us assume that a challenger author supplies an improvement andclaims 50% of the current answer's royalties. In this case, thechallenger author will be diluting the other two authors in the line.

Therefore, the method above can include rules for enabling any authorwho is diluted by an improvement to challenge the challenger author'sroyalty claim for that improvement, just as the current author canchallenge the claim.

1. a method for ranking and improving answers supplied by users to anonline database system, the method employing the following elements: anonline computer database system for supplying and retrieving answers(answer DBS), this answer DBS including processors, memory, onlineinput/output, software, and a user interface for: creating useraccounts, including accounts for funds entering a question and supplyinga corresponding answer entering a question and retrieving acorresponding answer entering a bet offer, which is directed at aspecified user accepting a bet offer entering a bet decision, the methodcomprising the following steps that the answer DBS executes: a firstauthor enters a question and supplies the first answer to that question,the answer DBS: storing the answer to correspond to the questiondesignating the answer as the current answer, the current answer to beoutput in response to the question being entered by consumer usersdesignating the author as the current author then, a second authorenters the same question and supplies a different answer, the answerDBS: storing the answer to correspond to the question designating theanswer as a challenger answer in relation to the current answerdesignating the second author as the challenger author in relation tothe current author and the current author's answer requiring the secondauthor to enter a bet offer, directed at the current author, claimingthat the challenger author's answer is better than the current author'sanswer registering the challenger author's bet offer alerting thecurrent author about the challenger author's bet offer if the currentauthor does not accept the bet offer, the answer DBS: designating thechallenger author's answer as the current answer and the challengerauthor as the current author if the current author accepts the betoffer, the answer DBS: registering the acceptance alerting a judge todecide the bet registering the judge's bet decision if the judge findsthat the current author's answer is better, the answer DBS maintainingthe current author's answer as the current answer; if the judge findsthat the challenger author's answer is better, then the answer DBSdesignating the challenger author's answer as the current answer anddesignating the challenger author as the current author.
 2. The methodof claim 1 in which the answer DBS includes steps for assigningroyalties for the new current answer to the new current author.
 3. Themethod of claim 1 in which the answer DBS includes steps for storingreasons, entered by an author, associated with a bet offer by theauthor, and for displaying those reasons with the author's correspondinganswer and bet offer terms.
 4. The method of claim 1 in which the answerDBS includes steps for enabling the current and challenger authors tosolicit the opinions of consumer users before a bet agreement has beenmade regarding which answer is better, the current answer or thechallenger answer.
 5. The method of claim 1 in which the answer DBSincludes steps for enabling either author in a bet agreement to retracttheir bet offer.
 6. The method of claim 1 in which the answer DBSincludes the following steps, executed when an author supplies achallenger answer to a current answer: storing the answer to correspondto the question that the current answer corresponds to designating theanswer as a challenger answer in relation to the current answer, and theauthor as a challenger author, in relation to the current authorstarting a submission deadline clock setting a time limit for additionalanswers by other authors to the same question if any other authorssubmit answers to the same question, designating each of those answersas a challenger answer, and each of their authors as a challenger authoralerting each challenger author and the current author about all theanswers supplied for the same question requiring every challenger authorto enter a bet offer claiming that his answer is better than the currentanswer and better than the other challenger answers registering fundsentered by the challenger author(s) to cover their bet offer(s) when thesubmission deadline clock runs out, starting a bet acceptance deadlineclock if the current author does not accept the bet offer(s) then theanswer DBS eliminating current answer from the answer competition theanswer DBS presenting the judge with the competing answers upon thejudge entering a decision as to which answer is best, the answer DBS:storing the decision and designating the winning answer as the currentanswer, and the author of that answer as the current author.
 7. Themethod of claim 1 in which the answer DBS includes steps for enablingany user of the answer DBS to bet on which competing answer will win ina bet controversy.
 8. The method of claim 7, the answer DBS further:creating a betting line regarding which answer will be judged best,generating said line from the bet offers and bet agreements made byusers regarding which competing answer is best dynamically designate theanswer that is favored according to the betting line as the currentanswer, until such time as a judge decides which competing answer isbest upon the judge entering a decision as to which answer is best, theanswer DBS storing the decision and designating the winning answer asthe current answer, and the author of that answer as the current author.9. An online database system for ranking and improving answers suppliedby users, the system including the following elements: an onlinecomputer database system for supplying and retrieving answers (answerDBS), this answer DBS including processors, memory, online input/output,software, and a user interface for: creating user accounts, includingaccounts for funds entering a question and supplying a correspondinganswer entering a question and retrieving a corresponding answerentering a bet offer, which is directed at a specified user accepting abet offer entering a bet decision, the answer DBS executing thefollowing steps: a first author enters a question and supplies the firstanswer to that question, the answer DBS: storing the answer tocorrespond to the question designating the answer as the current answer,the current answer to be output in response to the question beingentered by consumer users designating the author as the current authorthen, a second author enters the same question and supplies a differentanswer, the answer DBS: storing the answer to correspond to the questiondesignating the answer as a challenger answer in relation to the currentanswer designating the second author as the challenger author inrelation to the current author and the current author's answer requiringthe second author to enter a bet offer, directed at the current author,claiming that the challenger author's answer is better than the currentauthor's answer registering the challenger author's bet offer alertingthe current author about the challenger author's bet offer if thecurrent author does not accept the bet offer, the answer DBS:designating the challenger author's answer as the current answer and thechallenger author as the current author if the current author acceptsthe bet offer, the answer DBS: registering the acceptance alerting ajudge to decide the bet registering the judge's bet decision if thejudge finds that the current author's answer is better, the answer DBSmaintaining the current author's answer as the current answer; if thejudge finds that the challenger author's answer is better, then theanswer DBS designating the challenger author's answer as the currentanswer and designating the challenger author as the current author.